Is it OK to have a "Looking to Avoid" section on a resume?

Question

If I have a strongly held conviction that it is always important to use the most cost-effective tool to solve a given problem, and I know a list of certain tools that represent deal-breakers to me because my experience has shown me that they are never remotely close to cost-effective, is it reasonable to list these things on a resume under a heading like "Looking to Avoid..."?

An example is cubicles. I don't want to get drawn into a debate about cubicles since it's not the point of this question, but as an example I believe there is overwhelming quantitative evidence to suggest that even in the most expensive, dense urban areas, it is more cost effective to provide an individual private office to each programmer or knowledge worker in a company. I would be willing to compromise a little and have a shared office, but I know that the ambient noise, lack of privacy, lack of lighting control, etc., in a cubicle would be untenable for me (I've worked in cubicles before and I will not do it again). I will not work in a cubicle even if I find all other job properties to be excellent.

My goal is to allow employers who have a cubicle culture to weed me out, thus saving everyone time.

More generally, in cases where a tool or work environment property is unacceptable to me, and a company is unwilling to change it, I'd like them to be able to reject me for that reason earlier in the process.

But at the same time, I want to convey that these opinions are held for pragmatic, data-driven reasons of productivity and bottom-line getting-the-job-done results. They are not mere preferences but rather informed opinions about what unacceptable attempted solutions look like. This is important for the other set of companies that use tools I do find acceptable -- so that they understand I still want to roll up my sleeves and get a job done, I just have data-driven convictions about the most cost-effective way to do it, and that as long as they use reasonable principles to choose their tools in the future, I'm not going to suddenly stop getting the job done.

Answer 1

Is it OK to have a “Looking to Avoid” section on a resume?

Although it's your resume, and you can do anything you like with it, I think this is a poor approach. Remember, you will be severely narrowing down the list of potential employers. Adding this section is not the approach I'd take.

Employers with cubicles and unacceptable tools will of course avoid you. Clearly, that is what you are seeking with this approach. But many others will avoid you as well - even those with no cubicles and only the most acceptable tools and practices.

As I read your question, it screams "high maintenance".

I suspect many otherwise acceptable employers will avoid you because a "looking to avoid" section will tell them "this person won't be happy anywhere". They'll think to themselves "Well sure, I don't have any cubicles, and I don't have tool X or process Y. But what else will this person suddenly deem unacceptable?" If you are unwilling to compromise on your "Avoid" list, what other demands will you make?

When I interview people, one of the priority decisions is to get a sense of how this person will fit in. It's hard to fit high maintenance people in. There's only so much I can modify to suit the needs of one individual. I have to think of the entire team. Right or wrong, highly-qualified or not, I tend to reject high maintenance individuals from consideration. I'd worry that will happen to you too when it doesn't have to be this way.

You could take the approach you have chosen, but I think there's a better way. It would be far better for you to work with a reputable recruiter that you trust, who can match you up with positions that meet all of your standards without you having to advertise your laundry list of acceptable versus unacceptable in your resume. Be very honest with the agent, making sure he/she understands all of your "must avoid" issues.

If you don't want to work with a headhunter, then I'd suggest leaving your "Avoid" list off of your resume, and weeding out the unacceptable companies the old fashioned way - during the phone screen or initial interview. Just ask about items on your "Avoid" list. If you are looking around, see if they have cubicles. If so, don't continue on with the interview process. It may cost you a fair bit of time in an interview, but a good job is worth a bit of your effort.

We all have an internal "I'd never work at a company that..." list (for me, I'd never work at a company that requires me to travel on a regular basis). But advertising that list on a resume isn't usually the best solution.

Answer 2

I think it's excellent that you have a list like this in your head. You may not be right about the costs and benefits of cubicles, or a particular operating system, or any other tool, but you know what you want and that's great. It will give you a great source of questions in your interviews, and if you ask a company why they use something you have dismissed, you may learn a lot about them, including why they wouldn't be a good fit for you.

However I think it's a very bad idea to put it on your resume. It says a great deal about your attitude and approach to work, not all of it good, and without you there to temper that with your intelligence and general desirability. My people don't have cubicles, and if someone's resume or cover letter said "I don't want to work in a place that has cubicles" I might react by feeling "ah, I have a good chance with this candidate, great."

But if that cover letter went on to more specific tools that you refuse to use -- not because you don't like them but because you know what's best for my company and what is cost effective -- then I might switch to more of a "who do you think you are?" mindset. Your disclaimer, that these are not preferences but that you know better than I do how to make my company money by choosing specific tools, makes this worse, not better. This isn't even about experience, or whether it's your job to choose tools rather than use them, or how much you know about the rest of what a company does (some tools that frontline workers hate produce great reports for management, some expensive tools that seem no better than the free ones to you have features used by other people in the company you're ignoring) it's about your desire to take a choice that is very complicated and situation-dependent, and just make it black and white. You don't know my company. You don't prepare the tax returns. You don't know our customers. You don't know what we have to provide. But you're sure we're using the wrong tool if we're using X. If I read that, then even if I don't use X I don't want to hire the person who is so sure of their ability to handle this better than me. We would just butt heads the whole time, it's not worth it.

So have a list, and ask intelligent questions about it in the interview. Not "do you use X?" "Yes we do." "Ok, thanks for your time, I could never work here." But "what do you use for [whatever]?" "We use X." "Oh, I looked into that, but my firm chose Y. Can you tell me a little about how X is more appropriate for this firm?" If the answer you get is "none of your business" or "it makes it easy for us to crush the very souls of our workers" then you can stick with your conclusion that you don't want to work here. But they might surprise you.

Answer 3

Every now and again - namely, whenever i want to procrastinate - i head over here and try and find the oddest question.

Today, this is probably going to be the oddest question I find.

To summerise my answer:

1. You should not put this on your CV if you want a job anywhere
2. Your reasons for your preferences are unconvincing from a "get the job done" POV
3. you are in the wrong industry

I have no idea why you don't like cubicles for "data driven reasons" - but I'll tell you right now that there is no good way to explain that to anybody at all without sounding extremely kooky. No CV should have a "looking to avoid", because it is uncommon and difficult and employers want accommodating and easy. They might not even be able to legally say that, but they'll act on it just the same.

You don't want to engage in debate over this list, and that's reasonable, although I cannot help but strongly advise you that if the only reason is "data driven" and not personal preference from, say, an acoustic or health related issue, then you should just give up on this particular crusade. You mention you tried cubicles once (once!) before and didn't like it, but your last paragraph stresses this data-driven stuff, so I'm assuming your prejudice is is for these "data driven" reasons. What about open plan offices with desks?

Honestly, I don't think you should actually be doing programming, but rather marketing yourself as some sort of "worker efficiency" guy, because you seem to be much more passionate about worker efficiency than anything else ("I will not work in a cubicle even if I find all other job properties to be excellent"). If you're going to do something for the rest of your life, you might as well be passionate about it!

As a penultimate thought, you might find it simpler to complete the interview process, get the offer in hand, and then ask if you can be put in an office, although if I were you I would offer a reason (like personal preference for acoustic, or health, or mental focus reasons) that was not "data driven". Companies are often happy to do reasonable things for the right person, but the company has to be sure you are the right person first.

Finally, you might want to ask yourself if, in the scenario above with all your coworkers being in cubicles and you in an office, if you would be happy there. After all, from a "data driven" POV the company is still terrible, it is just you are better off. Is that ok, or are you the modern day office-worker Mahatma-Luther-Teresa, fighting for everyone?

Answer 4

I agree that certain toolsets have played into my decision to take a job at a company, but if I saw a resume with an avoidance category I would probably pass that candidate up regardless. People who have the audaciousness to think they know better about why companies make the choices they do are just generally more difficult to work with I found. They cause conflict wherever they go and ultimately make political enemies where I worked hard to get a nice set of compromises with other teams and people that can make any progress at all very difficult.

Don't add this.

Answer 5

Putting things you don't like on your resume is pretty unconventional. It's going to attract attention and initial screeners (HR) may just remove it right away. If someone is willing to go this far, it just sounds like you're not flexible enough to work in some places.

I'm a pretty flexible person. When I've managed others, I was open to their ideas and allowed them to use the tools and techniques they thought worked best. There is a point, that for whatever reason, I have to make a decision that they don't like, I'd appreciate the same courtesy I gave them and go with my decision. Nothing and no one is perfect. There are factors to consider that go beyond costs. As a programmer, you constantly have to work with unchanging constraints.

I'd suggest finding a way to put in your resume that you are willing to offer input and suggestions, but when decisions are made, you're willing to comply. Again, this is not an all or nothing situation. You have to pick and choose your battles. Very few managers can put up a fight on every single little decision make. Eventually, they'll just shut you down.

Edit: Instead of putting a list of things you don't want in a job, consider having a paragraph in a cover letter describing the type of job you do want. When dealing with a recruiter, be upfront about the things you want to avoid. They don't want to waste their time either trying to place you in a job you would never accept.

Answer 6

I've read through the other answers and your various responses to the questions.

I would look to put a more positive spin on what you are saying. You are saying that you have deeply held values: decisions should be made based on evidence and maximizing value is more important than minimizing cost. Your proposed "looking to avoid" section is really just a list of "symptoms" you've come up with that you associate with companies that do not hold these values as strongly as you do. As others have mentioned, this can easily give the impression that there are various other unexpected things that could come up after hiring you that could be a dealbreaker. Instead, you could list these values on your resume as very important to you. This would stand out positively for companies that share the values while avoiding some of the negative connotations of the avoid list.

I would strongly suggest focusing on three possible solutions to the problem:

• Start your own software development company, possibly a consulting firm, where you have complete control over the environment and toolchain.
• Focus on smaller companies that share your same values. Sharing your same values means there is a greater likelihood you can win them over to your view of the world if you have the evidence to back it up. Small means that you don't have to convince too many people and there is a greater chance that most will be like-minded.
• Focus on opportunities where you can work remotely and commit only to specific deliverables. This is similar to option 1 but you may still be a bonafide employee while maintaining control over the toolchain.

Answer 7

Obviously this question is well answered, but I think these points are important:

1. There is a point in engaging with any prospective employer, where you need be completely interested until they give you an offer. Then sort out whether you're not interested when there's a $$ offer on a table they may be willing to increase to $$$$$. My rule was to do my thinking and deciding offline, and only ask questions while seeming as excited as possible when on the phone or in interview with the employer.
2. People tend to really, really overestimate how important their preferences are. I have done this exercise with friends who say something like, "But I hate maintaining C code," and when I throw out a hypothetical amazing company with a great culture and high salary where it's in C - and dial the salary up until they feel compelled to consider it - they start saying things like "Well C is really low level and I've always been more interested in compilers and OSes and stuff." This effect is real and important, and I am currently in a job with a great employer who I at first dismissed completely on the grounds that "I really didn't want to work at an X company." Turns out I'm pretty okay with that.
3. I do find it odd that you're sending your resume out to people who you haven't bothered to research whether they have X. My above advice applies more to the "at least a little genuine interest" (even if they have X!) phase. But this is covered well in your accepted answer.

Here is the requisite classic article on negotiations for professionals who hate negotiation. It is required reading.